Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

So it boils down to someone who has never regulated a damper action thinks he knows better than someone who has.

Someone who thinks something would be better if something were changed thinks that is justification for orphaning older parts. You must be a poster boy for planned obsolescence!

"Theory and evidence" consists of citing one person, despite the fact that there has to be many, many others who disagree (because they are making pianos that he says are made wrong), and that there are thousands of counterexamples which disprove the theory.

It just seems that you, like others seem to do, just resent Steinway's success, and are plucking things out of the air merely to bash them.

ROY123,I have modified at least 30 Steinway damper lift tray systems to have the pivot point coincident with the damper under-lever flange. I am with you on that-BUT the extra mass of an added capstan simply makes the system more clunky. I would prefer to have the lowest damper/pedal mass possible in the system that gives fast damping. That way it is quieter and quicker to use. The added capstans and the W,N&G back action system don't provide that. Once trained, regulating the Steinway style damper system is quicker than bending and turning all those spoons and capstans.

Just because Del has posted Homeric length Pianoworld polemics for rib-crowned boards over compression boards is no proof! I have heard and played several of his rebuilds where he was given free reign to re-design the soundboard/bridge/string set as he wanted. They all were very disappointing pianos.

I have been replacing soundboards for over 30 years and use compression crown. I also have developed some modifications to what I think is the Steinway system so I am not a strict traditionalist. And I agree with a lot of what Del says about pianos BUT I have some very distinct differences.

I HAVE heard several rebuilt pianos where the soundboard was fabricated with some version of a rib-crowned system that sounded very good-SO it is a subject that is very difficult to come to hard and fast proofs.

The consequences to the customer do call for sober reflection on what and how engineering changes to a piano design is approached.

Withindale,The BB has a darker tone overall and a deeper bass than a B, if it is put together like the older ones. The BB treble scale is shorter than the A (5'8"). If you boost this when rebuilding-the treble become very good. I think the new BB's do that.

_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible.According to NASA, 93% of the earth like planets possible in the known universe have yet to be formed. Contact: Ed@LightHammerpiano.com

Amazingly some companies have done exceedingly well without any of that. In fact, some of the "least visible" among them are presently sold out months ahead of time.

These are alos the ones needing least "marketing advice" or "consultancy" by others.

Perhaps they are doing something right not much depending on "marketing" their wares?

And no, not just speaking about the few we happen to represent ourselves...

There a number to this list.

Norbert

Norbert my friend:

I am afraid you have missed the boat on this one.

The Marketing effort needs to be in proportion to the results desired.

Even the great piano manufacturers that you cite do indeed "market" their products. It may not be in the same way as the "volume" brands to be sure, but the marketing efforts of the great companies succeed in their selling out their extremely limited production, that is the key point.

Imagine, however, what kind of "marketing" Sauter or Steingraeber or Fazioli would need to do if their annual sales goals were multiplied 25 fold. Or 50 fold. See the difference?

One need not run commercials on the Super Bowl broadcast to sell the annual production of Chateau Petrus. Gallo, on the other hand...

So it boils down to someone who has never regulated a damper action thinks he knows better than someone who has.

BTW, I have regulated a damper action--two, in fact. One on an old Baldwin C I had, and one in my current Steinway M. On what basis did you state, with no qualifications,that I hadn't????????However, the real point is that the piano companies making and supplying the newer style damper actions think they are better. Do you know better than they? What pianos have you designed, built, and sold?

Originally Posted By: BDB

Someone who thinks something would be better if something were changed thinks that is justification for orphaning older parts. You must be a poster boy for planned obsolescence!

What you call obsolescence other people might call progress.

Originally Posted By: BDB

"Theory and evidence" consists of citing one person, despite the fact that there has to be many, many others who disagree (because they are making pianos that he says are made wrong), and that there are thousands of counterexamples which disprove the theory.

Most theories start with one person. Should Newton and Einstein be ignored because Newtonian mechanics and General Relatively each came from one person. I know of no counter examples. Please give some. You may recall that Del has explicitly said that sometimes compression crowning can work well, but in many cases it does not. That sounds like a marginal design that pushes the wood up to and often beyond its limit. Del has cited the authorities on the cross-axis compression strength of spruce, and the kind of compression strain induced in compression-strained soundboard panels. The only counter example of any worth is one that can cite, by means of some math, why the compression strain induced in the soundboard panel is not great enough to cause compression set in the panel. To my knowledge you have never done so.

Originally Posted By: BDB

It just seems that you, like others seem to do, just resent Steinway's success, and are plucking things out of the air merely to bash them.

I don't resent any piano company's success be they Steinway or the lowliest piano company out there. I merely suggested some things that I think would improve Steinway pianos. I was very careful to qualify my remarks, and made it clear that they were the opinions of a knowledgeable amateur and not an industry professional. There were only my opinion, which I have a right to. As I said before, some people think that Steinway is beyond criticism. Well, phooey to that--no companies are perfect, and all products sold in the marketplace have some deficiencies. I keep repeating that a good Steinway, well prepped, is a superb piano. If you think that's bashing, you have an unusual definition for it. Quite frankly, I've had quite enough of replying to your fatuous comments--you can have the last word. I have better things to do.